Analyze portfolio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool fetches data (read-only behavior) and returns structured JSON, and mentions handling of items without price matches. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., empty portfolio), leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence but is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds meaningful detail about output contents. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low parameter complexity and absence of output schema, the description effectively explains all major output components (value, breakdown, top items, unmatched price count). It also notes the output format. Minor omission: handling of empty portfolios or errors, but overall complete enough for an analysis tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context: the 'portfolio' parameter is explained in terms of account setup (multiple portfolios), and omitting it means combining all. This clarifies usage beyond schema defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'portfolio analysis', listing specific outputs like total value, profit/loss, category breakdown, and top N holdings. This differentiates it from siblings such as list_portfolio_items (which likely lists items without analysis) and get_portfolio_value (which may just give a single value).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (when a comprehensive analysis with breakdowns is needed) and hints at alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio_value for just total value), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.